Today is Memorial Day - but for old-timers like me, it really shouldn’t be. It should have been yesterday, May 30th.

Now I know I am probably in a distinct minority on this one, because if that were the case, we would not have had a three-day weekend this year. But I am an old stick-in-the-mud, and there’s something to be said for remembering where traditions come from and what they are supposed to be about.

May 30th was established as the original Memorial Day in the years right after the Civil War. Actually, they didn’t call it Memorial Day much at first, but Decoration Day. That’s because the idea behind the holiday was, quote, “for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in the defense of our country during the late rebellion.”

Those are the words of a Civil War general named John Logan, who went on to found and lead a veterans’ organization called the Grand Army of the Republic, GAR for short, which became the first major interest group to powerfully influence American politics.

Unlike modern interest groups, however, it was itself term-limited, since it was only open to Civil War veterans, which means that it went out of business when all of its members eventually died.

But for many years, it was a very big deal. You have to remember that the death toll in the Civil War was staggering. Two percent of the nation’s population died in the war.

The percentage of Michigan men who lost their lives was slightly higher.

That would be equivalent to losing more than six million men in a war today. As far as anyone now knows, Memorial Day was first celebrated in Michigan at Detroit’s Elmwood Cemetery on May 30, 1868. They had a bunch of flags, a badly stuffed bald eagle and a military band from Fort Wayne.

Veterans soon discovered the art of the parade, and politicians discovered parades were good opportunities to connect with voters.

Teddy Roosevelt was the star attraction in a Memorial Day parade on Woodward Avenue in 1918, held while World War I was still raging. Other wars followed, producing new martyrs, new veterans, and new graves to honor.

Michigan made its own contribution to Memorial Day; we started the custom of scattering flowers on the water to honor naval heroes. Memorial Day was probably the biggest deal ever when I was a little boy in the 1950s. There were immense annual parades; and even people who hadn’t lost relatives in battle would go to cemeteries with flowers.

But gradually, our lives changed. Populations dispersed; wars became less popular, we became more selfish.

In 1968, with half a million American soldiers still in Vietnam, Congress changed Memorial Day to the last Monday of the month, so we could all take three-day weekends.

Veterans felt their holiday had been trivialized, and they had a point. Americans no longer have to serve in the military, and our wars are smaller.

Fewer of us think much about the meaning of this day. Yet in the past year, thirteen more flag-draped coffins have come home to our state from battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My guess is that for those men’s families, Memorial Day weekend will forever have an entirely different meaning.

What do L. Brooks Patterson, Jennifer Granholm, the Ford Motor Company and the government of Canada have in common?

They are all in favor of the proposed new Detroit River International Crossing Bridge, usually known as DRIC for short. It would be built about two miles south of the old Ambassador Bridge. Private investment would be welcome, but DRIC would be jointly owned and run by the United States and Canada.

The pro-business, Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce is solidly in favor of the bridge. So is State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a liberal who represents the area that includes both bridge sites.

The Michigan Legislature now needs to decide whether to proceed with the project, and it should be a no-brainer. The government of Canada is so convinced a new bridge is necessary, that it has offered to cover Michigan’s share of the costs, money to be paid back later out of tolls.

Brooks Patterson estimates a new bridge could mean six thousand jobs for his Oakland County. The governor says as many as ten thousand could be created overall.

These would be good paying jobs that might last only a few years, but which are desperately needed in Michigan now.

All that has to happen at this stage is to approve a bill to allow the state to enter into public-private partnership agreements on transportation projects like the bridge.

But the House only narrowly passed the bill Wednesday without a single Republican vote, and now the bridge’s fate is up to the GOP-controlled Senate. And prospects are doubtful, because one man is firmly opposed -- Manuel “Matty” Moroun, the eighty-three-year-old billionaire owner of the eighty-one year old Ambassador Bridge.

Right now, he has a monopoly. Detroit-Windsor is the nation’s biggest and most important trade crossing. Billions of dollars in goods rumble across the Ambassador Bridge every year.

But it is wearing out. There is no backup if something happens to the Ambassador, and while the volume of trucks declined significantly during the recession, it is now moving back up again.

Even Moroun knows a new bridge is going to be needed, but he doesn’t want to lose his monopoly. He wants to build a second bridge of his own next to the current one, instead.
Trouble is, few others think that is a good idea, for reasons involving security, pollution, and the freeway system in Canada.

Even the thoroughly free-enterprise Detroit News says it was time to recognize reality and start building the DRIC bridge.

The Canadian government has indicated it will never allow the Ambassador Bridge to be twinned, But Moroun isn’t giving up the fight. He figures Job One is stopping the competition.

Accordingly, he continues to oppose DRIC. He donates lavishly to political campaigns, and whether for this or other reasons, he has strong supporters in the legislature still trying to stop the new bridge.

This seems suspicious, given that the Republican-controlled Ohio senate just voted unanimously in favor of the DRIC bridge. Michigan needs the jobs it would create, and needs to avoid the very real threat of having trade diverted to the crossing at Buffalo, New York. So, now our future is up to the Senate. In this case, if we don’t build DRIC, a whole lot of jobs won’t come.

Artist Andy Warhol once said that “in the future, everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes.” Sometimes it feels like that‘s already true. But what Warhol didn’t tell us is that it is often a nasty shock when society decrees your fifteen minutes are up.

Yesterday, in a Detroit courtroom, the clock ran out on a man named Kwame Kilpatrick, who for the last nine years has used and abused the citizens of his city and his state.

Five years ago, the voters reelected him, after four years in which his conduct had clearly been unbecoming of a mayor. Two years ago, we learned that his lying and his perjury had cost his cash-poor city more than eight million dollars. After months of desperately trying to save his career, he ended up pleading guilty to felonies and resigning from office.

But we weren’t finished giving him more chances. Sympathetic businessmen lent Kilpatrick and his family hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a noble effort to help both Kwame Kilpatrick and the city of Detroit, Compuware’s Peter Karamanos gave him a good job at his firm’s subsidiary in Texas. A six-figure job with enough income to enable Kilpatrick to make his restitution payments and rebuild his life.

Yet he still gave in to the self-destructive impulses that had cost him the mayor’s office. Once again, he settled into a pattern of lies, deceit, and failing to live up to his obligations. Soon, he was constantly being hauled back into a Detroit courtroom.

Every time that happened, the heart of new Mayor Dave Bing would sink, as would those of the other people who are striving to save Detroit and Michigan from financial collapse.

Every time Kwame Kilpatrick was in the headlines, it made it just that much less possible to sell Detroit.

Incidentally, if you live in Grand Rapids or Lansing or Flint and think this has nothing to do with you, think again. When the rest of the nation and the world think of Michigan, they think of Detroit.

Our state’s image is inextricably tied to that of our largest city.

But yesterday, this phase of the show ended. Kwame Kilpatrick delivered a long, rambling speech pleading for mercy.

Wayne County Circuit Judge David Groner said he agreed with precisely one thing the defendant said, that it was time to move on.

Time for us all to move on. He called the former mayor on his lies and noted that he had continued to lie in court after having been convicted of lying in court. Then he sent him to prison.

Not the county jail, but state prison. He’ll serve a minimum of eighteen months, and possibly as much as five years. Yes, there will be an appeal, but it is hard to imagine it succeeding.

Prisoners don’t get to face the cameras and hold press conferences. Eleven years ago, a prosecutor told me that as another high-profile criminal, Jack Kevorkian, was led off to prison.

Out of sight; out of mind. Kevorkian, who turns eighty-two today in a tattered little suburban apartment, has largely been forgotten.

Detroit gave Kwame Kilpatrick the keys to their city when he was thirty-one. Today, at age thirty-nine, he’s doing hard time.

Which is exactly what he gave the people who elected him for too many long years.

May 25, 2010

State Senator Bruce Patterson has an idea to help people sort out the media. He wants to create a state board to license and regulate reporters. Michigan Radio Jack Lessenberry has been thinking about that.

State Senator Bruce Patterson got to thinking about the media recently, and noticed something. Hairdressers and auto mechanics are regulated and licensed by the state.

So are lawyers, doctors, even those who give manicures. So, he reasoned, why shouldn’t reporters be as well?

Last week, Senator Patterson told MIRS, the Michigan Information and Research Service, that he was bothered because there are fewer full-time people covering Lansing.

And some who do show up don’t have adequate knowledge or background to understand what they are writing or broadcasting about. As a result, he says some “news sources” just aren’t credible.

He knows that a plumber legally has to be licensed by the state. So, he reasoned, why shouldn’t journalists be regulated as well? Accordingly, he has introduced a new bill, SB 1323, to add reporters to the list of occupations regulated by the state.

His bill would set up a board to review applications and license reporters. Candidates would have to demonstrate that they have a journalism degree, or, failing that, three years of experience, some published stories, and letters of recommendation.

Those who qualify would have to pay a license fee, and would be entitled to call themselves a “Michigan Registered Reporter.” Senator Patterson isn’t suggesting that those who don’t register be prevented from writing or broadcasting anything.

He just thinks it would help the public distinguish who was a reputable reporter, and who wasn’t. Now, I have to say, I understand his concern. I have been reporting on serious subjects for more than thirty years. I see people writing on blogs or running their mouths on various broadcast media who clearly have no idea what they are talking about, and who haven’t bothered to check their facts.

This drives me crazy. Especially since, as the senator notes, it’s often hard for the average person to distinguish between who is a credible news source and who isn’t. However, I think his bill is the wrong way to try to deal with this, and here’s why.

Sooner or later, the registration process is bound to be politicized. Conservatives are going to threaten the licenses of some journalists; liberals are going to go after others.

Knowing how journalists think, I can tell you that virtually no one is going to want to be a state-designated “registered reporter,” though I can see lobbyists and public relations types applying for that designation. Real journalists have always resisted being licensed.

That’s because the First Amendment says speech is supposed to be equally free for all Americans. Nations who designate who can write and broadcast freely also tend to try to prevent others from not doing so. To his credit, Senator Patterson told me that he really doesn’t expect his bill to go anywhere, that he just introduced it to stimulate discussion within the public and profession.

That in itself isn’t a bad idea. The explosion of all types of media has made it hard to sort out what’s legitimate and what’s not, and this topic deserves to be talked about all the time.

However, I was tempted to point out to the senator that one little phrase in his bill would automatically disqualify almost all of us. He wants registered journalists to be of “good moral character.”

The Michigan League of Conservation Voters annual environmental scorecard will be released tomorrow. Unfortunately, it will show that when it comes to taking care of our most precious resources, our lawmakers have been letting us down.

After reading an advance copy of the scorecard, I talked about it with Kerry Duggan, the LCV’s deputy director. What motivates your group to do this? I asked. She said it was simple. “Citizens expect that lawmakers will vote in ways that protect our national resources.

“I wish that were true,” she added, “but unfortunately, politics gets in the way of logic. We are dedicated to shedding light on the good, the bad and the ugly, and the scorecard is our tool for Michiganders to actually check in on how their elected officials have voted to protect our Great Lakes, our state parks, etc.

When I read through the scorecard and compared votes, I was struck by two things. First of all, the deep partisan divisions that now exist on environmental issues. Thirty years ago, you could make a strong argument that the Republicans had pretty consistently been the more pro-environment of our two major parties.

Teddy Roosevelt, in fact, had started the modern conservation movement, founded the U.S. Forest Service, and approved more new national parks than he could shake his famous big stick at.

Even Richard Nixon approved starting the Environmental Protection Agency, and William G. Milliken was the most environmentally conscious governor Michigan has ever had.
But that has all changed now. The contrast between the parties is sharp, and nearly all the Democrats have better voting records on environmental issues than almost any of the Republicans.

This doesn’t please those who are running the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. They are a non-partisan, non-profit agency with both Republicans and Democrats on its board.

They can do their job better when there is bipartisan cooperation to protect the environment. But in today’s Michigan, that isn’t happening. The scorecard, by the way, is created by comparing how lawmakers voted on a wide range of bills over the past year.

During the past year, forty-three Michigan legislators received perfect scores on protecting the environment. All were Democrats.

But twelve legislators -- three in the house and nine in the Senate -- voted against the environment every time. Most significantly one of these was Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop.

Not only did he oppose pro-environment bills, all too often, he prevented such bills from even coming up for a vote. “Inaction in the senate was the common theme of this legislative session,” Duggan told me. “Numerous bills were passed in the state house to protect Michigan citizens and children from toxic substances like mercury and arsenic. But none of the bills saw the light of day in the Senate.”

She added that most of the time the Senate did spend on conservation issues was spent trying to dismantle environmental protections, for example, trying to weaken oversight of the state’s natural resources to the federal government’s minimum standard.

Written more in sorrow than in anger, the scorecard itself expresses puzzlement over why Michigan officials have “too often, picked short-sighted policies that put our natural resources in danger.“ That’s a question we should all be asking.

If you want to check it out, the entire scorecard should be online tomorrow at www.michiganlcv.org.

May 21, 2010

The deadline to send census forms in was April 1st. But thousands of enumerators are now trying to track down the millions who didn’t comply. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry reports that a lot more than numbers are at stake.

For most of us, the census is over and half-forgotten. The U.S. Census bureau mailed forms; we filled them out -- a process that took me less than a minute -- and we mailed them back in by April 1.

Some of us absentmindedly set the form aside, and within a few weeks, we got a postcard gently reminding us to send it in.

When the deadline came, Michigan was ahead of most other states. Seventy-seven percent of us had mailed the forms in, five points better than the national average.

Then, however, the hard part began. The Constitution of the United States has always required the federal government to count the citizens every ten years. That first census found our young nation had about 3.9 million people, fewer than Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties combined do now.

The last census ten years ago found that for the first time we had more than three hundred million. We have developed computerized tools to estimate populations, but the census mandates an exact count. Back in the early days of the republic, census results were used primarily for determining how many seats each state received in the U.S. House of Representatives. That’s still an important function of the census, but it is far from the only one.

The final census numbers are also used to draw new state legislative districts. But they also determine how much money states and cities get for countless government programs.

The more people the census determines Michigan has, the better we will do. And that’s more important than ever. We lost a seat in Congress last time, possibly because our population was under-counted. We are likely to lose at least one and possibly two more next year, which would be devastating in terms of our ability to get what we need in Washington. A complete count is essential.

So since the end of April, thousands of enumerators have been going door to door, trying to find the estimated 48 million households that did not return a census form.

They’ve got till July 10 to do a job that in some cases may be downright dangerous. They have to go into neighborhoods that aren’t safe. They have to dodge pit bulls and maybe worse.

They have find people living behind dumpsters or who are on the lam. Some of the uncounted are just lazy. Some, however, are deliberately avoiding the census.

They fear the information will be given to the tax collectors or the police. None of that is true. The 2010 census has been greatly simplified. Robert Groves, the national census director, is the former director of the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center.

He says the census is now closer in form to the original 1790 census than it ever has been. Ten simple questions; that’s it.

The other night I had dinner with Dr. Karl Gregory, a retired Oakland University professor who is a special advisor to the census. He says he is pleasantly surprised by how well things are going to date, but stressed that the next three weeks will be critical.

So - if there’s anything you can do to help make someone count, please do. Try as they might, the enumerators never find all of us. And Michigan really needs to make this count for us this year.

May 20, 2010

This week, the federal government announced a massive program to clean up former abandoned and contaminated General Motors sites. Michigan Radio’s Political Analyst Jack Lessenberry is wondering… why stop there?

There are a few differences between people and most other animals, and here‘s one:

Animals, by and large, don‘t make messes in their own nests. We do, and we have made bigger and more costly messes in industrial states like Michigan than just about anywhere else.
P>
And as a result, we have vast amounts of severely contaminated land. Partly, this was because we didn‘t know any better, back in the early industrial days of the automotive industry.

Even in my misspent youth in the 1960s, guys would go to a vacant lot, change the oil in their hot rods, and pour the old stuff onto the ground. Nobody knew quite how terrible that was.

Now think of the pollution produced by all those automotive plants, some of which are now a century old, places where the ground is full of nickel and lead and cadmium. There are many places that have essentially been unusable because the expense of cleaning them up was more than the value of the land.

However, we got some good news about all this this week. President Obama and General Motors are establishing a huge, $836 million-dollar trust fund for environmental cleanup at now-closed GM sites. Not surprisingly, more of this money is going to be spent in Michigan than anywhere else. This involves more than fifty sites in Detroit, Pontiac, Saginaw, Willow Run, and of course Flint.

They hope to get this all going by the end of the year.

By the way, the General Motors in this project isn’t the one that builds cars, but its unlovely twin, Motors Liquidation, Inc, the corporation the government established to sell off and liquidate the unwanted and bad parts of the old GM.

In another bit of good news, we’re told that this shouldn’t cost any new taxpayer dollars. When it was established as part of last year’s government-sponsored bankruptcy, Motors Liquidation was given $1.2 billion to close up shop, and this money would be the lion’s share of that. This should be especially good news for Flint.

The very first cleanup site scheduled is the sprawling and now-abandoned Buick City complex, which includes hundreds of acres.

In many cases, cleanup will include not only treating and removing contaminated soil, but demolishing abandoned factories themselves. This is essential, of course, if Flint or any of the other cities involved hope to lure new development there.

There has been talk of building a so-called intermodal transportation and distribution center at what was Buick City.

Governor Jennifer Granholm wants to see the areas being cleaned up become clean energy manufacturing sites.

That’s a worthy goal, but right now I’d guess most cities would be content with anybody reputable who would open a business and put some of their citizens back to work.

Initially, I was doubtful that this $800 million would be enough money to clean up all the polluted GM sites, but they say it’s more than enough. If that turns out to be so, I have an idea.

This is taxpayer money anyway, and I would like to see the rest of it used to start cleaning up old Ford Motor Company sites.

Pollution is pollution. The more we get rid of, the better off we will be. Not to mention all the unborn generations to come.

May 19, 2010

The passage last week of the school retirement bill means that the state will save some badly needed money. But, Michigan Radio’s Political Analyst Jack Lessenberry wonders if we’re thinking about what this will mean for the state’s students…

Michigan lawmakers are still congratulating themselves over having passed the school retirement bill. What’s telling, however, is that their pride doesn’t have anything to do with education policy.

All they are really thinking about is saving money. That’s not to say that the teacher retirement bill is all bad. The best thing about it is that it will create new jobs for tens of thousands of new teachers, who otherwise might have had to leave the state or the teaching profession, or both. Some will bring fresh new ideas.

The bad part, however, is that Michigan schools will lose thousands of highly skilled teachers, at a time when our state can scarcely afford to give our kids a diminished education.

Many of those now being forced into retirement are in their early fifties and right at the top of their professional careers. And the worst thing about the new law is that the schools are forbidden to bring these folks back as part-timers or consultants.

Last night I talked to the woman who has been recognized as the best Advanced Placement history teacher in Michigan. She doesn’t mind retiring, but would like to come back as a contract worker and teach a class or two. That would be fine with her district.

Her students consistently had the highest scores on placement tests, and get accepted to the best colleges in the country.

But the law forbids any school district from hiring anybody, even part-time, who is drawing a state pension. Plus, the teacher’s union to which she paid dues for forty years doesn’t want any part-timers on the job, because they fear they’ll lose union dues.

What nobody is thinking of is the kids, and making sure they get the best possible education. Not allowing retired teachers to come back on a part-time basis is going to be especially hard on districts in out-of-the-way places which may be losing, say, the only special education teachers around.

Yes, this saves money - in the short run. In the long run, anything that further weakens education will cost Michigan big time, far more than we know, and our children and grandchildren will pay for it. There’s a national, non-profit project called Kids Count, which measures the educational well-being of children.

They released a report this week that ought to give us nightmares. According to Kids Count, reading proficiency among Michigan fourth-graders is falling like a rock, in part because cutbacks have hit early childhood programs. Michigan is now below two-thirds of the other states when it comes to their ability to read.

That means that seventy percent - seventy percent - of fourth graders are not reading at an adequate level. That soars to ninety-one percent among black kids, tying us for worst in the nation.

Kids who cannot read have no future. Yet our lawmakers are afraid to ask us to sacrifice. I think the last time politicians really cared about education in this country was when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and seemed to be winning the space race.

We were terrified, and poured billions into education. Today, unless we improve the schools, our way of life will be doomed.

But without a clear external enemy, neither the public nor the politicians seem to understand this.

By now, you’ve probably heard that General Motors made money in the first quarter of this year. In a way, this was like hearing that Sandy Koufax had emerged from retirement to pitch a shutout.

Actually, it’s been only three years since what was once the world’s biggest corporation turned a profit, though it seems like much longer. Since then, ownership has passed from the stockholders to the U.S. government. Taxpayers have spent more than $50 billion - that’s billion with a “B” - to keep GM from going out of business.

Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer have joined Oldsmobile and Tyrannosaurus Rex on the extinct species list, and Saab was given up for adoption. The company which sold more than half the cars and trucks Americans bought in the early 1960s now sells fewer than one out of every five vehicles, and that’s unlikely to change.

But the news of profitability seems to have been more than a fluke. No, General Motors is not out of the woods yet.

No, they haven‘t yet proven the wisdom of bailing them out. Nor are they ready to return to the private sector. But the company’s net quarterly profit of almost a billion dollars is encouraging in a lot of subtle ways. Best of all, General Motors actually made money in North America, made more than a billion from selling cars and trucks in its core market. That has often not been the case in recent years, even when the giant automaker was profitable.

GM also made money in Asia. The one dark cloud was a half-a-billion dollar loss in Europe, where the economy and the euro look increasingly shaky. Don’t look for those numbers to improve soon.

Nor should anyone assume that General Motors itself is out of the woods. One quarter does not prove much of anything. This is a company that lost $88 billion dollars in the last five years.

This is a company that would not exist today without government bailouts. There is, as yet, no long-term plan to get to the point where the company is stable and profitable enough for the government to sell it back to the public and thereby recover as much as possible of the taxpayers’ huge involuntary investment in GM.

Yet the most encouraging thing may be that GM executives seem to understand this. Their profit announcement was free of the braggadocio you would have seen in the bad old days.

There are other good signs too. Inventories have fallen dramatically, and the company is offering fewer incentives. That’s because there is more legitimate demand for GM vehicles, and a few hot sellers like the Equinox and the Camaro.

As Winston Churchill once said in a different context, this is not the end of General Motors’ troubles. Nor is it even the beginning of the end. However, it may be the end of the beginning.

These first quarter figures seem to show that the public is willing to give GM a chance. New chairman Ed Whitacre Jr, and his team seem focused on their core business: Making and selling cars. However you feel about the bailout, and whatever kind of car you drive, it’s hard not to hope that GM succeeds.

I don’t like making my monthly mortgage payment. It costs a lot, and means there’s other stuff I can’t buy. However, I plan to keep making it because it beats sleeping in the street.

Basically, you could say that your mortgage or rent or car payment is a sort of private tax. The bank assesses you so much, and you pay it so that you can keep your house or car.

Nobody really objects to that, because you can see what you are getting, and also see what you have to lose. Taxes are like that too. Except we aren’t too sure sometimes of what we get for them, and many of us now think that government spending is always bad.

Right now, we are in a recession, and the state has less money than it used to.

Politicians fear that if the voters believe they are raising taxes of any kind, they will punish them.

They may be right. But in Michigan, taxes go to fix the roads and bridges and send our kids to school.

There is no longer enough money to do the things the state has always done, and we have a choice. We can pay more, or get less. Unlike the federal government, the state has to balance its books every year. And we citizens are a bundle of contradictions. Nobody wants to pay more. But nobody wants to lose the services they get, either. Trouble is, most of us don’t know what we would lose if we really do insist on a budget without any new revenue.

So here’s a sample. This isn’t hypothetical; this is from the budget the Republican-controlled state senate is in the process of passing, a budget without tax increases.

One of the bright spots in our economy has been tourism, which has been helped by the Pure Michigan advertising campaign.

The Senate voted to end that ad campaign, and added a 51 percent cut in the money to maintain the state’s welcome centers. Senator Liz Brater thought that was crazy.

“That’s cutting off our nose to spite our face.” she said. “We’re trying to attract tourism in this state.” Yes, well, it takes money to make money, and her colleagues won’t spend it.

The governor proposed funding the ads with a tax on rental cars at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a tax paid mostly by out-of-state travelers. But the senate refused because any taxes are bad.

What we need even more than tourism is jobs. But the senate voted to eliminate two-thirds of the 21st century jobs fund.

That isn’t even funded by tax dollars; it is funded by the tobacco settlement money. But the senators took it away anyway.

They further cut revenue sharing for hard-hit local governments, and heavily cut highway maintenance and other transportation funds. Now to be fair, the Senate is planning on using the money cut from the roads to try to qualify for $475 million in federal matching funds, something that’s essential.

But it isn’t clear whether this will work.

That’s far from the complete list of things that will have to be cut. They haven’t even gotten to higher education.

But we can only get what we are willing to pay for. So, you might want to ask whether we really have our priorities straight.